The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

18 August 2006

Democrats, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Rush Limbaugh, Talk Radio

THEY'RE BAAACK

Carter, Dukakis Return To The Spotlight





Like a stubborn case of the stomach flu, two Democrats from a dark and distant past keep reappearing in the spotlight, just as most Americans thought (hoped?) they'd vanished for good.

Yes, if you'd thought we'd seen the last of both former President Jimmy Carter and even 1988 candidate Michael Dukakis, consider yourself wrong.

Carter, for one, can't seem to keep himself out of the news this month, from his son Jack's lopsided Democrat Party primary victory for US Senate in Nevada (he'll next take on GOP Senator John Ensign in November), the decision by judicial appointee District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to end warrantless wiretapping, to his now- infamous Der Spiegel interview.

Carter told the German publication that the United States and Israel stand alone in the world and that the latter's attack on Lebanon has been wholly without justification.


For talk titan Rush Limbaugh, that interview provided tremendous fodder for Thursday's show. From his official transcript:


RUSH: If you're just joining us, ladies and gentlemen, I'm fit to be tied today. I've had it with the constant drumbeat of negativity, enraged, irrational madness that embodies itself in a hatred of George W. Bush by a bunch of people that have not the slightest clue what they would do differently about anything.

Jimmy Carter is engaging in traitorous conduct in my opinion with an interview that he has granted to der Spiegel magazine, and I guess he's got a new book out. Let's pick up this interview where we last left it, at the conclusion of the previous hour. Jimmy Carter says, "Another very serious departure from past policies," that all of us ex-presidents did that Bush doesn't do "is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book."

I have no clue what he is talking about. He doesn't describe it here. I'm not going to read his stupid book. I don't need to know what the guy believes. He said, "This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible --"

Separation of church and state? What the hell is going on in this country is the exact opposite. We have people who are doing their best to squander a particular religion they don't like. Separation of church and state, for crying out loud! If these people had their way, there wouldn't be any religious freedom in this country, to get down to brass tacks.

"The other principle that I described in the book," Carter says, "is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America," and here Mr. Carter demonstrates just pure ignorance.

Can he not see what is happening in the US economy? Does he not see the growth of the world economy, even after 9/11, even with terrorism out there? Does he not see the 15% increase in the United States GDP? Does he not know all of the increased tax revenues flowing into his precious government because these tax cuts? All we have done is increased employment, we're at 4.8% employment, Mr. Carter.

What was it when you were ruining the country? You tell me, sir, what was employment? What were interest rates, you expert? You've got all the answers, sitting around in your Cardigan sweater with the thermostat at 68 degrees in the wintertime. Bah, humbug, sir!

This is absolutely ridiculous. He is parading his abject ignorance. He gets a Nobel Peace Prize for it. Wages are up in this country. Affluence in this country has never been higher. The standard of living has never been higher -- and he sits here and talks about the immorality of tax cuts for the rich? Tell me, sir, do you think
the capital gains tax cut has anything to do with sur- prising revenues flowing into the trea- sury?

The projected deficit is smaller; experts are stunned every month when employment or other economic figures are released.

You sit there in Germany and you dare to criticize this economy when you ruined the US economy for four years? We had gasoline lines, we had 14% inflation, we had interest rates that were approaching 20%. It was so bad, sir, during your great presidency, we had to come up with the misery index to quantify and explain it -- and your presidency was called that of malaise and you're the one that named it. (interruption) What? Well, of course he blames it all on the people. Liberals always blame everything on the people! The people are stupid; the people don't know what they're doing. The people didn't understand the gift that God had given them in the Jimmy Carter presidency.

Der Spiegel: "You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?"

Carter: "No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon."

Let's go back to the question: "You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq." Again, a stupid question! What was 9/11? Did it not happen as far as these people are concerned? We had not gone into Iraq. George Bush had been president for barely six months, nine months, whatever when 9/11 happened.


Also back in the game these days is none other than Michael Dukakis. From travels down his own political memory lane, to a "see, I told you so!" approach to Bay State politics, the failed 1988 presidential candidate is suddenly everywhere, between talk radio, television and print media in New England.

Need a guest for your talk show? Ready for action, Dukakis is standing by his phone.

Have room on your Op-Ed page? Call Mike!

In addition, sympathetic leftists (including those in the news media) are busy revisiting his failed campaign to explore how mean- spirited righties unfairly destroyed his political career. Even the specifics of the Willie Horton controversy are now being rewritten for the mainstream media's sake. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, his mistakes are being analyzed for the sake of Lt Governor Kerry Healey's gubernatorial campaign.

Apparently, we're not alone in noticing the strange sight of Dukakis 2.0. From a piece by limited taxation advocate Barbara Anderson in the Lowell Sun:


Fortunately, Mitt Romney is now in charge of the Big Dig, and is clearly in his element when addressing a crisis. And for contrast, we have former Democratic Gov. Michael Dukakis, returned to rewrite history.

He is everywhere, on television, talk radio, in newspaper articles, insisting that the Big Digaster wouldn't have happened if the Republican governors had listened to him: They should have kept his transportation secretary, Fred Salvucci, to run it right and for his estimated $2.4 billion cost.

Michael, you can't rewrite history until everyone who actually lived it and remembers it is dead. And I'm not.

As for the mismanagement, Salvucci blames Proposition 2 1/2 for cuts in the state Department of Public Works Department. Prop 2 1/2 limits only local taxes but, in fact, state spending for itself was indeed cut in 1981 to give more local aid to the cities and towns. I heard from DPW engineers that year, complaining that they were being laid off while legislative-supported hacks were protected. But the state economy was creating surpluses when Salvucci put the DPW in charge of Bechtel in the mid-1980s, apparently without checking to see if engineers were available for oversight.

And though those of us who disputed the $2.4 billion estimate were called "naysayers" at the time, it didn't even last through the Dukakis administration, increasing to $4.4 billion by 1990.

When the Legislature leaves next week, Dukakis should go away, too.


Somehow, it doesn't appear that he will go away anytime soon. What's it all about, his political legacy, a fresh need to again take the stage, or some other as- yet unknown reason?

Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately order!

26 Comments:

  • Man, it's even becoming a task to come here and dump on you. Dukakis and Carter? What, between civil war in Iraq, the crack up of the GOP, the death of George Macaca Allen's Pres. aspirations and a Federal Court saying your President broke the law... you focus on guys who haven't been in the news for over 20 years?

    No wonder your sitemeter has been dropping faster than Bush's anemic poll numbers.

    BTW, whatever happened to your AIr America source????

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    By Blogger Lifa, at 18 August, 2006 00:49  

  • Now if Mr. Carter had been told that the offspring of a certain murderous rabbit were infesting Lebanon then I'm sure he would now change his mind in regards to the bombing of Hezballah.

    I could only wish that Mr. Carter had not been in the news for 20 years.

    By Blogger Pat Patterson, at 18 August, 2006 01:46  

  • I could only wish that Mr. Carter had not been in the news for 20 years.

    What does that even mean? Does a former president require Alzheimer's to get out of the public spotlight?

    By Blogger WHT, at 18 August, 2006 01:57  

  • Carter is a total Doofus, and Dukakis is worse. You lefties love failures, drunks, and liars. You have no moral compass and are increasingly being tuned out. Look at YOUR ratings.

    By Blogger PCD, at 18 August, 2006 08:37  

  • "I could only wish that Mr. Carter had not been in the news for 20 years."

    "What does that even mean? Does a former president require Alzheimer's to get out of the public spotlight?"


    What does it mean? It means Carter should go back to pounding nails and building homes for the poor. At least he could retain some dignity.

    Carter was the worst present in modern history. Stagflation, unemployment, gas lines that stretched a city block, 18% mortgage rates, turn the temperature down, wear cardigan sweaters, and of course, the typical Liberal do-nothing attitude toward the 440-day hostage crisis (except send a hand-written letter to Iran begging to let them go, pretty please!!!) ... and now he is a soul mate with Michael Moore.

    that is Carter's legacy!
    .

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 18 August, 2006 09:24  

  • several issues to address. first, you quote Rush as saying - "Separation of church and state? What the hell is going on in this country is the exact opposite. We have people who are doing their best to squander a particular religion they don't like."

    gee, i'm pretty sure the nazi republicans are doing that with Islam right now.

    also - PCD claims that dems are out of touch. apparently this child has been living in a cave for the last few months. The most recent figures available show that the republicans are behind democrats by 12 percentage points among likely voters. that's right, people would rather see dems in charge. on issues of national security the split is dead even. the president's approval rating is hovering in the mid to low 30's. and, unlike you righties, i'll provide a source. (forgive me for not knowing how to embed the code, you'll have to cut and paste.)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701484.html

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 18 August, 2006 09:52  

  • Polls can say anything you want them to if you ask the questions the right way. (Didn't somebody's 2004 exit poll show that John Kerry was miles ahead in the early voting?) The only poll that really counts is the voting booth in November.

    Sure, it's always possible that the Republicans will lose seats in Congress, or even the entire Congress, but in the meantime, what exactly are you Democrats strutting and crowing about? You're out of power in the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and you've lost ground in the Supreme Court. And you have nobody who can articulate a coherent policy on national security (what we get is, "Ummm, well, we Democrats would do it ... smarter. Yeah, that's it -- smarter!").

    Look, I'm not even a hardcore Republican -- I'm a center-right guy who votes for the candidate who makes the most sense. Nor am I predicting anything for November at this point, since a lot could change (in both directions) in the meantime.

    But it should tell you something that a newly declared Independent in Connecticut might wind up thrashing the Democrats' own far-left, anti-war, primary-winning candidate. (You want links and sources? Read and enjoy: http://www.boston.com/news/local/
    connecticut/articles/2006/08/17/
    poll_shows_lamont_gaining_support_
    but_still_trailing_lieberman/)

    And it should tell you something that Air America Radio, which imagines itself to be the voice of the people, can't even get enough people to listen in New York City, for crying out loud (sayonara, WLIB). Yeah, that's a mandate, all right.

    Really, until you've actually achieved an election victory, the best advice is the old saying: "Do it, then brag about it."

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 18 August, 2006 10:51  

  • "failures, drunks, and liars"

    Why bring Bush into it?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 18 August, 2006 11:15  

  • Other than Mr. Carter - what former presidents have been know to comment on current political affairs?

    I don't think anyone who was an adult during the Carter years has much respect for the man.

    Frankly, I can't imagine any intelligent Democrat liking him.
    The Democrats had a huge chance to govern forever after the Nixon scandals. The word Republican had to be whispered. They were so radioactive, I expected 20 years of Democratic Presidents.

    Fortunately, 4 years of Jimmy Carter cured that. Of course, it also damn near ruined the country

    I had friends with decent credit who had car loans at 21% interest rates thanks to the democratic handling of the economy.

    Oh and is Lifa another head of the hydra? I don't recall the name but the phrasing of the sentiments are so familiar sounding....

    By Blogger Lokki, at 18 August, 2006 12:47  

  • Carter is more moral than the viperous hatemongering fake Christian Bush and the greedy, selfish black hearted Cheney will EVER be. Carter was a man of compassion, a man of ideas, and one of the more intelligent president's to EVER hold office. Performance wise, not the best but to insult liberal's moral compass, in the same breath as Carter is an outright insult. Republicans HAVE NO MORALS, fake Christianity for the sake of votes is not moral. Using the term "islamo-fascists" is not moral, desiring racial profiling is not moral. Allowing New Orleans and the gulf coast to drown is not MORAL, worshipping a drug addled cigar-chomping bigot with 3 divorces undee his belt is not MORAL, admiring a flaked out former dead-head who visciously attacks anyone who does not think like her is not MORAL(coulter), listening to a filthy, hatefull, demonic coward of a man like Savage Weiner is not moral. Kicking people out of a church for not liking Bush is not moral (happened to my best friends uncle) he was asked who he is voting for, and as a REAL CHRISTIAN, he said Kerry. Attacking other people's morality is not MORAL. Republicans use morality as a talking point. I could go on and I will. You people make my skin crawl. Attacking John McCain's adoped child is not moral, Jack Abramof and tom Delay are not moral, jamming phone banks in New Hampshire is NOT MORAL, sending letters to Democats telling them to vote the day after the election is NOT MORAL. Calling all people on public assistance lazy and blaming all of them for their financial status is NOT MORAL. Sending almost 3000 US service to die for a mis-guided pre-emptive invasion which resulted in an Islamic theocracy (built on the tax payers back) is NOT MORAL. Destroying the enviornment in the name of big business is NOT MORAL.
    NOT A SINGLE THING REPUBLICANS STAND FOR IS MORAL. The pro-life stance does not make up for the sick culture of death, and bigotry which is so pervasive in the elected officials of the GOP and their myopic followers. This is the cold truth of your warped political tastes. Nt a single one of you freepers have any right to talk about the 'moral compass' of anybody else. Your party is a cancer on America, a filthy murderous cancer. I mean it from the bottom of my heart. I became involved in talk radio because of my disgust of phony "conservatives" who attack others morals. I will let my message be known, I will dedicate my life to speaking the truth. The more of us, the more exposed you phony moralists becoms, therefeore marginilized.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 18 August, 2006 13:38  

  • 4th estate - i'm well aware of the Lieberman/Lamont issue, since I've written numerous articles about it. and only a fact-fearing person would discredit poll numbers, even when every other polling agency gets the same results from different samples in different areas around the country. the point is that republicans no longer have the edge of terror - Bush's numbers haven't changed at all in wake of the terror plot in Britain, and now a federal district court has ruled that he violated the constitution, which he swore to upheld in his presidential oath of office. of course, this decision will be appealed, but that is a major setback for republicans, and you can't spin that positively. as for AAR (no idea why that came into the argument) but they are gaining a more powerful signal in NYC, so i don't know why you think that losing WLIB means they are in trouble. they've now got a 5-year deal on a more powerful station.

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 18 August, 2006 14:34  

  • Carter is nothing more than a perverted lefty who reminds me of a slimy, thin-skinned cold-blooded reptile who speaks with a forked tongue while slithering from one race-baiting photo-op to the next.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 18 August, 2006 14:37  

  • Carter is nothing more than a perverted lefty who reminds me of a slimy, thin-skinned cold-blooded reptile who speaks with a forked tongue while slithering from one race-baiting photo-op to the next.

    People with Alzheimer's are known to pick up their own feces and throw it at the wall. So what exactly are you sayong?

    By Blogger WHT, at 19 August, 2006 00:58  

  • heavens, the ::::ahem:::: Reality based Community is really in a dither these days.

    We witness surrender-as-policy Lamont losing in the polls to Lieberman, then the ACLU in its lawsuit before Carter appointee Judge Taylor (who writes such a sloppy, biased, unsubstantiated by law, political screed masquerading as a legal opinion, even honest liberal legal experts are aghast) admitting that the plantiffs have terrorist ties.

    Carter, neurotically jealous at his failure as President whores his former role in the world by America bashing. This is a male who practically fell to his knees to kiss the hand of every vile dictator and, in the Der Spiegel interview, drops all pretense and engages in wild Jew-hate.

    He is morally bankrupt and a dispicable person.

    By Blogger Darleen, at 19 August, 2006 01:23  

  • By Blogger Elmonica, at 19 August, 2006 01:26  

  • Liberal Outlaw said ...
    "4th estate - i'm well aware of the Lieberman/Lamont issue, since I've written numerous articles about it. and only a fact-fearing person would discredit poll numbers, even when every other polling agency gets the same results from different samples in different areas around the country."

    Hmmm ... "Only a fact-fearing person would discredit poll numbers?" So you believe that EVERY poll ever taken is accurate? If not, congratulations -- you just agreed with my point. And if so, perhaps you could explain how those 2004 exit polls showed Kerry thrashing Bush.

    *************************
    "the point is that republicans no longer have the edge of terror - Bush's numbers haven't changed at all in wake of the terror plot in Britain"

    Polls or no polls, there comes a time when Democrats will have to stop throwing spitballs from the cheap seats and explain what exactly they would do about terrorism if they were in power. You can't fool the American public forever with silly non-answers like "We'd do it smarter."

    *************************

    "and now a federal district court has ruled that he violated the constitution, which he swore to upheld in his presidential oath of office. of course, this decision will be appealed, but that is a major setback for republicans, and you can't spin that positively."

    Oh, please ... wasn't she a Carter appointee? Big shocker that she ruled against the Bush Administration. I wouldn't get too excited until after the Supremes have had their say.

    In any case, what exactly would liberals win with this decision anyway? If it stands, it'll be that much easier for Osama and Friends to unleash another 9/11 on U.S. soil. Wow, that's certainly worth popping champagne corks over.

    *************************

    "as for AAR (no idea why that came into the argument)"

    Because Air America's lack of popularity underscores the fact that liberal thinking isn't exactly making inroads into mainstream America, that's why.

    *************************

    "but they are gaining a more powerful signal in NYC, so i don't know why you think that losing WLIB means they are in trouble. they've now got a 5-year deal on a more powerful station."

    Now what was that you were saying about "fact-fearing person(s)" again? Obviously, it's time to go to school here.

    Let's start with wattage. According to the FCC Web site, WLIB (AAR's old flagship) has 30,000 watts in the daytime and 10,000 at night. WWRL (AAR's new station) has 25,000 watts in the daytime and 5,000 watts at night. Check it out for yourself: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/amq.html

    How a switch from 30 kw/10 kw to 25 kw/5 kw equals a "more powerful station" is something I'd really enjoy hearing you explain.

    But it's even worse than that for Air America. Here's a quick education on AM radio, which notes that stations with lower frequencies (say, 1190) have better range than stations with higher frequencies (say, 1600):
    http://www.musicradio77.com/transm.html
    "AM radio stations on the low end of the AM Broadcast band have greater daytime range given the same power level as stations on the higher end of the AM broadcast band. One example is comparing New York City radio stations WQEW and WABC. Since WQEW is much higher in frequency at 1560 kHz. vs. WABC at 770 kHz., its local range is much less even though both stations operate at the same power level of 50,000 watts."

    So, by moving to WWRL, Air America just dealt itself the double whammy of less power combined with less signal range.

    As for Air America's new contract, whether it's five years or 500 years, what does it really matter if fewer people are listening?

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 19 August, 2006 01:28  

  • One more try. Here is the

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 19 August, 2006 01:33  

  • Minister of Propaganda said...
    "Republicans HAVE NO MORALS, fake Christianity for the sake of votes is not moral."


    First of all, I don't believe every Republican's Christianity is fake (and good luck proving it). More to the point, how exactly do liberals claim holier-than-thou points on the religion issue when they actively strive to eliminate every trace of religion, whether it's a manger on the public square, the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or the (gasp!) G-word in a valedictorian speech?

    ****************************
    "Carter was a man of compassion, a man of ideas, and one of the more intelligent president's to EVER hold office. Performance wise, not the best ..."


    Well, my niece has compassion and ideas, but that doesn't qualify her to be president of the United States.

    As for Carter's intelligence, evidently it was on hold during his four years in office. The Carter years featured double-digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates -- not to mention a hostage crisis that he was clueless to solve. (And we haven't even gotten into the way Carter helped spur the rise of Islamic militancy with his spineless dithering.)

    "Performance wise, not the best," you say? That's a bit like saying, "Performance wise, singer William Hung isn't the best."

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 19 August, 2006 01:51  

  • Elmonica - no soap. The hyperlink didn't even show up this time. I'm interested to see it - it looks like it's on RawStory somewhere. Maybe just put the http language and we can cut-and-paste?

    In the midst of The Strawman's tirade people who are NOT MORAL, he came up with this little nugget of ironic truth: "Attacking other people's morality is not MORAL." Nicely played, sir. Self-contradictory 450-word tirades are always a good use of someone else's bandwidth.

    One thing, Strawman: you're not involved in talk radio. You're involved in talk podcasting. When your whiny, nasal NooYawk accent can heard over the airwaves and can be received with a standard radio set rather than with internet hookup, then you'll be on talk RADIO. You can wank yourself and your partner all you like, but if you're hoping that (to badly paraphrase the Buggles) internet will kill the radio star, you're in for a long wait.

    By Blogger JD, at 19 August, 2006 23:37  

  • So, by moving to WWRL, Air America just dealt itself the double whammy of less power combined with less signal range.



    By The4thEstate, at 19 August, 2006 01:28

    Make that a triple whammy as they're moving to a station that has virtually no ratings. So, at best, all of their few listeners will follow them to WWRL. At worst they'll be losing a part of what little audience they have.

    In addition, AAR is losing it's morning show, as WWRL is keeping Greenfield and Williams.

    From what I understand, Morning Drive is kinda important in radio.

    By Blogger Brett, at 20 August, 2006 00:31  

  • Darleen: witness surrender-as-policy Lamont losing in the polls to Lieberman, then the ACLU in its lawsuit before Carter appointee Judge Taylor (who writes such a sloppy, biased, unsubstantiated by law, political screed masquerading as a legal opinion, even honest liberal legal experts are aghast)
    MINISTER RESPONDS:
    With all due respect, Tom Ridge even agrees with the ruling. Tom Ridge is far from a liberal. Ridge understands the need for a paper trail and RETROACTIVE WARRENTS. No matter how the right tries to spin this ruling, the whole silly Limbaugh attack on Carter is simply based on the fact Carter appointed this judge. It was not his idea either, I subscribe to GOP.com, and get the same talking points. Limbaugh is not a brilliant radio host, he spouted the SAME EXACT TALKING POINTS, that GOP.com emailed EVERYBODY, to attack Carter. Keep that in mind Maloney, next time you dedicate a thread to a hack like Limbaugh.
    Back to the FISA ruling, the authorities are allowed to WIRETAP for 72 hours without a warrent. Limbaugh, Hannity and the other awful HACKS, forget to inform their audience of this FACT.IF you were informed of this FACT, you would not buy Bush's defense of BREAKING THE LAW. EVERYBODY SUPPORTS WIRETAPPING, but WIRETAPPING WITH A PAPER TRAIL AND DOCUMENTATION, not WARRENTLESS, UN-MONITORED violation of the LAW. This is simple. I get it, there is no excuse for Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest NOT TO GET IT. They do GET IT, but pretend not to know the facts which I just explained in order to furthur their agenda, which is simply to blindly support a radical administration which even Bush Sr. is sickened by. If most normal Republicans understand the ruling, and all Democrats understand the ruling, why is it that people who thrive on right wing punditry DO NOT GET IT. Darleen, you are mis-informed by your peers. They are not Republicans, they are radicals who desire a UNITARY EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT, not a representative DEMOCRACY. Nobody is siding with the "terrorists", the judge is siding with AMERICA, and anyone actually INFORMED, understands the ISSUE. It is not hard. Use your nogin. Shut off the talk radio, and THINK.

    4TH ESTATE: I agree with you on some points. The problem with the 10 commandments is not everybody is a Christian or a Jew in America. I agree that leftists who are anti-religion are being Anti-American. I don't want to be marginalized because I'm religious, I'm a Buddhist, and if I was a valedictorian I would not want to be censored. I 100% agree with you. The problem is the right wing ignores the non- Judeo-Christian religions in America. That is my problem with the 10 commandments in the court room. We are not a Christian nation, we are a nation of ALL RELIGIONS. This is not Europe, we do not have a state sanctioned religion. I do appreciate your civil, tone in debatingf the issues. Sometimes I get too carried away. I'm sorry. Some of your points on Carter are valid as well.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 20 August, 2006 14:48  

  • J.DOne thing, Strawman: you're not involved in talk radio. You're involved in talk podcasting. When your whiny, nasal NooYawk accent can heard over the airwaves and can be received with a standard radio set rather than with internet hookup, then you'll be on talk RADIO. You can wank yourself and your partner all you like, but if you're hoping that (to badly paraphrase the Buggles) internet will kill the radio star, you're in for a long wait.


    Nice ad-hom on my N.Y accent, made me laugh at least. I'm sharpening my skills on a low pressure outlet as of now, it's a great opportunity.
    As far as my statement "Attacking other people's morality is not MORAL.", it is 100%. Snug Republican pundits do this on a daily basis, while having an immoral background themseleves. My basis of debate is not attacking others morals, many conservatives relay upon this. It is disenguinie. All of my examples are clear and fact based. Prove me wrong on a single one of them. I will continue to improve and take the high road. With each mistake I make, I'm aware of it, and I'm working on improving. The same can not be said of your side for the most part. When I take the low road, I'm fully aware of it, it is not done out of smugness, but out of frustration. Talking to radical right wingers is like talking to a wall

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 20 August, 2006 18:12  

  • Has anyone noticed that The Strawman whines about ad-hom attacks whenever anyone puts anything negative toward him, but still expects free rein to be able to gratuitously insult each and every pundit to the right of Bob Herbert, only to hide behind his "fact based" opinions when called on it? ANd then start in with the weasel words like "most" and "many" after painting with the broad brush?

    The Strawman asks that I prove him wrong. Well, Strawman, I don't have to - you do it with your every post! You write that you will continue to take the high road, or at least you're trying to improve, but you accuse almost all others of not doing so. And so, when you take the low road (which you say you are attempting not to do), it is done out of frustration at talking to people who do not share your rather, er, unique view on things. Thus, you feel the license to go low-road.

    Dude, my four-year-old makes more sense than that. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you without going gutter, then you have no bidness on any discussion forum, much less selling yourself as a Budding Vaporcast Sooperstar, at least not until you grow up.

    Strawman is a damned near perfect name for you now, because every time I read one of your screeds, I keep humming to myself "If I Only Had A Brain."

    By Blogger JD, at 21 August, 2006 00:47  

  • J.D
    I use far fewer ad-hom attacks than you or your fellow "football team" ahhh Republicans use. Your whole basis is AD-HOM, my basis is fact. You are clearly obsessed with me, and I clearely come out on top of eveery last thread with fact based arguments. Only straw man is you and your sads talking heads on the T.V and radio. AD-HOM fools, still standing by this failed administration, as one GOOD REPUBLICAN after another COMES OURT against them. Latest Tom Ridge and Chuck Hagel. Must be sad to be part of that 32% indeed. Still, you have not refuted or argued one single thing I brought up.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 21 August, 2006 09:40  

  • I can't - BECAUSE YOU DON'T BRING UP FACTS!!! You bring up opinions and attempt to get others to prove the negative, but I refuse to play your games. On here, you spew, you accuse, you scream, you bitch, you whine, you moan, but you never, ever link to anything supporting your "fact based" opinions. And then when anybody has the temerity to disagree with you, you whine "ad-hom" to the teacher.

    I would really appreciate your personal definition of "ad-hom attack." However, I think in your world it means "Disagreement with the Minister of Propaganda."

    I choose to live in the real world.

    The real world is where the so-called "32%" as you call it, that horrible group of people you hate so much, is doing its utmost to keep your miserable melon attached to your scrawny neck. And then being called every name in the book by nice gentlemen like yourself for doing so; nice gentlemen who are full of criticism and bile, but lacking in answers or suggestions - or references or quotations to back up your claptrap.

    Link, or get off the board. We're not here to do your research for you. You make the claims, you back them up. Otherwise, STFU.

    By Blogger JD, at 21 August, 2006 15:05  

  • Get a grip, JD.

    The sooner your ilk is driven back into the cellars and torture domes where you belong, the sooner reconstruction can begin.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 21 August, 2006 17:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger